There are things we could do with SLS/Orion that are worthwhile in themselves, and there are things we could do with SLS/Orion that don't result in an unacceptably low flight rate in the near term. The question is, is there a mission that meets both criteria?

I contend that the answer is yes. This shouldn't be surprising, because SLS (ie: Ares x Jupiter) and Orion were originally designed for that mission.

I guess if you don't plan to build a lunar outpost and merely want to fly a few sorties with a small lander then you could be right. Still, I think NASA wants to avoid doing that.

Why shouldn't an outpost be built? Once the lander is ready, there's no rush; we can simply keep sending sorties until the base is ready. And I don't agree that the lander would need to be small.

I guess if you don't see any value in lunar exploration as such, you'd be just as happy to pick up and leave as soon as we've practiced a bit for Mars; hence the rush to get a base down and then abandon it right away...

I'm out on a limb here and would like to close this down; it is not, after all, what the thread is supposed to be about.

A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.

Logged

I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest! I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.

Atlas wouldn't be unproven, it will have launched many times before then and also will still being using existing stages. Also, it will be carrying humans also.

SLS will carry humans but it isn't much better than Atlas. It was found that Constellation wouldn't might the human rating standards put forth in the early 2000's and they were rewritten.

Atlas will be flying from a proven team, SLS will still be going through growing pains.

A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.

Atlas V is on track to be human rated, and it's successor (Atlas "X"?) no doubt will be human rated too since one of ULA's owners needs a human rated launcher for their spacecraft (i.e. Boeing and their CST-100). When that changeover occurs is unknown at this point, but it's pretty certain it will happen.

And if Atlas "X" was not an option then SMD could choose Delta IV Heavy, or by that point Falcon Heavy might be available. And though Delta Heavy is not human rated, it is already certified for carrying what is arguably our nations most valuable payloads - spy satellites, and not humans. And we know SpaceX will be pushing Falcon Heavy to get Air Force certified as quickly as possible to start taking away Delta IV Heavy payloads from ULA, so it might be certified enough by that point to be an option.

The SLS has a challenge in proving it's reliability since as a system (i.e. all parts flying together at the same time) it launches so infrequently. But if the price is right SMD could be swayed, or even if the price isn't right but they are told to use SLS...

And I see Jim's less verbose post has made it out before mine, but amazingly we seem to be of like mind...

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

SLS will likely be a rougher ride for the little probe in terms of vibration environment because of the big solids. As for taking the first ride on EUS, for all we know at this point, that might be the first SLS launch as well.

A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.

Atlas V is on track to be human rated, and it's successor (Atlas "X"?) no doubt will be human rated too since one of ULA's owners needs a human rated launcher for their spacecraft (i.e. Boeing and their CST-100). When that changeover occurs is unknown at this point, but it's pretty certain it will happen.

And if Atlas "X" was not an option then SMD could choose Delta IV Heavy, or by that point Falcon Heavy might be available. And though Delta Heavy is not human rated, it is already certified for carrying what is arguably our nations most valuable payloads - spy satellites, and not humans. And we know SpaceX will be pushing Falcon Heavy to get Air Force certified as quickly as possible to start taking away Delta IV Heavy payloads from ULA, so it might be certified enough by that point to be an option.

A page or two back someone made the argument that the EC shouldn't be launched on the first SLS with a EUS because it would be launched on an unproven stage. I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but given the fact that ULA is changing engines in Atlas V both the new Atlas V and SLS IB would be unproven. If I was in SMD and I had to choose between two unproven launchers I would pick SLS since it is being designed to carry humans (less tolerance for failure) and would most likely be at least majority paid for by HEOMD.

Atlas wouldn't be unproven, it will have launched many times before then and also will still being using existing stages. Also, it will be carrying humans also.

SLS will carry humans but it isn't much better than Atlas. It was found that Constellation wouldn't might the human rating standards put forth in the early 2000's and they were rewritten.

Atlas will be flying from a proven team, SLS will still be going through growing pains.

So, your arguments don't hold water.

Of course the current Atlas is being human rated and has flown many times. The future Atlas will also be human rated but it will not have flown very long by the time EC is ready.

And if Atlas "X" was not an option then SMD could choose Delta IV Heavy, or by that point Falcon Heavy might be available. And though Delta Heavy is not human rated, it is already certified for carrying what is arguably our nations most valuable payloads - spy satellites, and not humans. And we know SpaceX will be pushing Falcon Heavy to get Air Force certified as quickly as possible to start taking away Delta IV Heavy payloads from ULA, so it might be certified enough by that point to be an option.

The SLS has a challenge in proving it's reliability since as a system (i.e. all parts flying together at the same time) it launches so infrequently. But if the price is right SMD could be swayed, or even if the price isn't right but they are told to use SLS...

From what I understand though Delta IV Heavy may also be modified. Also I concur that Falcon Heavy could do the job pretty well. All I was pointing out was that the ULA launchers are being modified and that the risk of failure launching on one of them vs. SLS would be roughly similar.

Logged

I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest! I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

It also appears likely to me that unless the supply of RD-180 engines is actually cut off manrating of the Atlas V will continue. The new ULA/Blue vehicle is years from first flight and will, like Falcon, require some operational experience before being accepted for human launch. I doubt any effort will be made to manrate the Delta IV since this would be expensive, the field is already rather crowded and the Delta will likely be supplanted by the new ULA/Blue Origin concept.

Why would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)?

Regardless how reliable one launch system may be, it makes sense - for a number of reasons - to have more than one launch provider.

Atlas V is going to be around long enough that Boeing will be able to use it for the CST-100, and the new Atlas will not come online soon enough to satisfy NASA's needs for starting Commercial Crew flights in 2017. And regardless whether it's the current Atlas or the future Atlas they will both use the same upper stage, which is part of the reliability equation too.

However for non-crew payloads that need to get to space in the 2020's, the new Atlas should be an option as well as Falcon Heavy.

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Because Boeing won a contract and they are using Atlasa. And your point is?b. No, it isn't.c. So can Atlasd. Not relevant to this discussione. Again, your circular/nested links don't support your point. That policy is OBE and still wouldn't apply to commercial crew anyways. Your basic premise is wrong and so your argument is a house of cards.Anyway, the "engine" does not belong the USAF and it was not develop with USAF money.

Because Boeing won a contract and they are using Atlasa. And your point is?b. No, it isn't.c. So can Atlasd. Not relevant to this discussione. Again, your circular/nested links don't support your point. That policy is OBE and still wouldn't apply to commercial crew anyways. Your basic premise is wrong and so your argument is a house of cards.Anyway, the "engine" does not belong the USAF and it was not develop with USAF money.

The point is:a1) How many LVs are required to provide crew to ISS - Shuttle and Russia were fine for ISS for decades - russia will have solely closed the gap for 7 years till 2017 - if ISS splashdown occurs in 2015, 2017, 2020, 2024 ? - DOD: one LV and a second LV with a two year supply was fine for Class A payload (which is crew) Now add the constraint: given the lack of money for other exploration hardware?

a2) How many U.S. LVs are required in NASA LV independent architecture for BEO and when? - BEO was solely based on SLS/Orion seems quite illogical - If the answer to a1 is two (russia and falcon), why not spend the cash on a next gen LV instead o Given the higher fight rate of the single core LV (?), why fly crew on the heavy variant of any EELV or SLS which has less flights?

b1) yes it is since it will be 7 years with single provider....b2) There is a crew escape plan, and many ships can maintain ISS in orbit in the event of a contingency

c) yes, but do you need 3! for ISS? is not a more economical LV more important? Not if you work on Atlas?

d) sure it is ...if ISS splashdown occurs "soon", even 2024 what is the point of having 3 LV to ISS?

e) With Delta, having LH2 and RS25/RS68 tied at the hip, too expensive, not in future plans (?), it does not appear to add much to the equation crew rating Delta. With Atlas, it appears to have a better case than Delta, but with solids makes it an expensive line and has the RD-180 being replaced. *incorrectly* (conveniently) , the policy said no crew rating--its not *my* premise---Is not a depot centric architecture with the existing fleet 60B cheaper than the SLS/Orion alternative for the same 15 missions over 20 years, where the same LVs carry crew and cargo? *Unfortunately*, the EELV option was still too expensive (86B) for the current budget (FH was 10 B cheaper) and the mission set still does not fit within the budget--has this study been updated?

So while folks tried to fit the depot and the smaller existing fleet within the budget box, the data says: SLS/Orion/existingEELV is not taking Astronauts to anywhere important EELV needs an upgrade to be more cost effective... let old space shine...is there a way to think differently about all this? Yes...a multiple LV independent architecture with the goal of reuse and/or reduced costs and more mission hardware and technology development.

So policy, the inability to incrementally update hardware over decades, wrong priorities (mis allocated budget), lack of oversight and too much oversight....AncientU said it best "What a mess".

Why would you certify Atlas/Delta for crew? Isn't one US vehicle (Falcon) enough in the short term (not FH)?

Regardless how reliable one launch system may be, it makes sense - for a number of reasons - to have more than one launch provider. Atlas V is going to be around long enough that Boeing will be able to use it for the CST-100, and the new Atlas will not come online soon enough to satisfy NASA's needs for starting Commercial Crew flights in 2017. And regardless whether it's the current Atlas or the future Atlas they will both use the same upper stage, which is part of the reliability equation too.However for non-crew payloads that need to get to space in the 2020's, the new Atlas should be an option as well as Falcon Heavy.

Yes, but with such a limited budget, is not economic access to space a more pressing need than a third LV provider to ISS? Does not a reuseable "RL10" negate the upper stage certification? Perhaps some real rocket scientists should start working this all out within the budget and all the priorities?

It also appears likely to me that unless the supply of RD-180 engines is actually cut off manrating of the Atlas V will continue. The new ULA/Blue vehicle is years from first flight and will, like Falcon, require some operational experience before being accepted for human launch. I doubt any effort will be made to manrate the Delta IV since this would be expensive, the field is already rather crowded and the Delta will likely be supplanted by the new ULA/Blue Origin concept.

Delta...see e) above, so yes field is too crowded. Can this new LV be certified by starting with propellant deliveries to the LEO depot? Again, Why have "3" providers to ISS?

So even if these two sample return missions are flown by SLS, with such a low flight rate, should not Class A cargo ( including crew) be carried on common configurations (crew and cargo) with the highest flight rate (implying higher demonstrated reliability)?

its not *my* premise---Is not a depot centric architecture with the existing fleet

No, because cost is not the overriding requirement. Political realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. The fleet: Falcon, Antares, Delta and Atlas can exist with SLS or without SLS. Or better yet, the fleet can exist with or without manned BLEO missions. Just don't mess with Falcon, Antares, Delta and Atlas, leave as is and let the market sort it out. If they are needed for manned BLEO and depots, then have NASA just contract out the launch services and not engineer the launch vehicles. Don't combine SLS with Atlas or Delta in any discussions (like you have in the past "SLS/Atlas/Delta"), they are separate and unrelated. And when you do talk Atlas and Delta, you also have to include Falcon and Antares, as they are part of the same fleet.

Don't combine SLS with Atlas or Delta in any discussions (like you have in the past "SLS/Atlas/Delta"), they are separate and unrelated.

The RS-25 and 68 are tied at the hip with the same folks who provide the RL-10 for these vehicles..not separate and not unrelated. Carrying blue engines for EELV and old space engines for SLS is not cost effective...so if you do not combine NASA's BEO and LEO needs with DODs, one will not reduce cost to space (along with several other items mentioned earlier).

Yes the engines may be substituted and increased/decreased in number from another provider, but clearly this has not occurred. Recall also that in LV design, it about the engine and it takes center stage. Having the same folks work on mulitiple product lines cuts costs too. So SLS/Atlas/Delta {engines} should be consolidated with the goal of resuse, and may be replaced my newspace engines. Old space may surprise here..time will tell.

The reality is that NASA does not require a HLV nor a Super HLV. I expect some very creative bookkeeping to occur with SLS/Orion to stave off cancellation. Wait for it

1. The RS-25 and 68 are tied at the hip with the same folks who provide the RL-10 for these vehicles..not separate and not unrelated. Carrying blue engines for EELV and old space engines for SLS is not cost effective…

2. so if you do not combine NASA's BEO and LEO needs with DODs, one will not reduce cost to space (along with several other items mentioned earlier).

Wrong again.

1. RS-68 is going away. So they are not related and doesn't play into long term planning

2. Again, SLS has nothing do with reducing cost to space. It doesn't happen enough to matter

None of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.

Political realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out.

No cash no depot...."Market" no want depots..no depots...the market is quite complex. To infinity and beyond....infinity is the time scale.

None of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.

SLS and Orion represent are the centerpieces of all that is wrong with the process and actually restate the obvious: "One thing you can count on however, is that they will increase spending on their political interests and cut taxes for the same." "its all about the base"

Political realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out.

No cash no depot...."Market" no want depots..no depots...the market is quite complex. To infinity and beyond....infinity is the time scale.

None of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.

SLS and Orion represent are the centerpieces of all that is wrong with the process and actually restate the obvious: "One thing you can count on however, is that they will increase spending on their political interests and cut taxes for the same."

Political realities can't be ignored. That is where *your* premise fails. NASA has to have its own (SLS), see congress about that. DOD, ULA and SMD want nothing to do with SLS. There is no synergy with any of its hardware. Anyways, ULA has a plan for vehicle to compete with Spacex that will serve DOD, SMD and commercial. If you want depots to replace SLS, that is fine. {snip} leave as is and let the market sort it out.

No cash no depot...."Market" no want depots..no depots...the market is quite complex. To infinity and beyond....infinity is the time scale.

None of this has to do with the subject of this thread. It's just the typical "SLS vs [fillintheblank]" discussion that can be found in a million other places on this site and throughout the interwebs.

SLS and Orion represent are the centerpieces of all that is wrong with the process and actually restate the obvious: "One thing you can count on however, is that they will increase spending on their political interests and cut taxes for the same."

Talk about Mars and Europa or be gone

As much as I agree with mu0mega on depots and the wastefulness of SLS/Orion, I agree with jtrame that this isn't the thread for that discussion.

This is a 1969 paper on how the Saturn V could be used in the 1970s for various missions, including planetary missions.

I remember those times. Unfortunately those who advocated this approach were unable to develop the level of grassroots public support needed to bring about the large investment to continue Saturn production, establish lunar bases, and develop HLV-based planetary probes. Even the proposal for a second Skylab was dropped.